Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism [Hardcover]

It covers a lot of ground. Of course, the subject is enormous. The reviewers who complain, "Hey, he could have talked about this" are all correct. Muravchik had to pick and choose and, overall, I think his choices were excellent.

When Muravchik says "socialism," he means two related beliefs: 1) that a substantial part of the world's major problems are caused by the fact that private individuals and private organizations own property, and 2) that these problems will end--and can only end--when property is held by the people in common (though there will be a transition stage while common ownership somehow works through the problems).

Tactically, socialists break into two camps. One (call it the Fabians) believes in trying to make things better even while capitalism continues, though with an eventual goal of superceding it. The other (call it the Communists) believes that making things better may actually make things worse, because it could postpone the Revolution. Making things better is only good if it builds "class consciousness": hatred of the capitalists and the love of the people who will make the Revolution.

Alas, says Muravchik, wherever the Revolution has succeeded in eliminating capitalism, it has failed to bring dignity and prosperity to the workers. And it has been a civil liberties disaster. On the other hand, efforts to improve capitalism--through regulation and "social safety nets"--have often had good results. Many people who once believed in government monopoly now believe in a "mixed economy" "regulated capitalism" "welfare state." They are, says Muravchik, no longer socialists, even though they may continue to use the word. Norway, Denmark and Sweden have cradle-to-grave social services but they also have big companies and a large private sector. They are not socialist countries.

Muravchik thus puts himself in the same general group as Francis Fukuyama who famously declared "the end of history." All serious thinkers believe in democracy and all serious thinkers believe in some sort of regulated capitalism. The big questions are solved; the rest is tinkering.

But perhaps he should have said more about this. Karen Sampson Hudson (May 23, 2002) seems to have missed the point entirely. And how stable is the present situation? How many people have really given up the idea that a good government (i.e. one run by people like them) should run everything? Have the European welfare states gotten so generous that they risk killing the capitalist geese that finance them? Is Hayek right that a big government, no matter how well-meaning, at some point is "the road to serfdom"? These are questions for a "post-socialist" future. "Heaven on Earth" is a history. Five stars.